Weems v. Mayfield
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Weems, the complainant, seeks to enjoin the respondent, May-field, from inserting windows in the second story of the latter’s building, in the division wall between them. The wall was built by contract between the parties, equally upon the property of each of them owned in severalty. The wall, eighteen inches in thickness to the height of the first story, rested equally upon the lots of both parties. The wall of the second story rested one-half, or nine inches of it, upon the lot of Weems, and four inches of it only on the lot of Mayfield, the wall being set in five inches from the inner part of the building of Mayfield. The wall was built in 1889, and was built solid, or without open
This subject is not affected by § 3138, annotated code, for § 2434 provides that an estate in land for a term of more than one year shall not be conveyed from one to another, unless the conveyance be declared in writing, signed and delivered. A wall built upon the dividing line of two separate proprietors, partly upon the land of each, is a party wall. The ownership of the land under a party wall remains in the several owners, subject to the easement of supporting the building upon each lot by means of the common wall; and this easement is limited to what is necessary for that purpose. A division wall is usually a solid wall, and by usage the words ‘‘ party wall ’ ’ and “ division wall ” have come to mean a solid wall. Matts v. Hawkins, 5 Taunt, 20., s. c. 1 E. C., L. R., 4; Norvelle v. Gill
The decree helow is reversed, the i/ryjv/nction is restored, and it is ordered that the same he made perpetual.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.